Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Rule 110 PROSECUTION of Offenses
1. General Rule: MTC and RTC courts gain jurisdiction over the offense upon the filing of complaint by a
complainant or an information by the prosecuting officer
Court gains jurisdiction over the person of the accused upon arrest or surrender; such jurisdiction
once gained cannot be lost even if accused escapes (Gimenez vs. Nazareno)
Jurisdiction of the court over the offense is determined at the time of the institution of the action and
is retained even if the penalty for the offense is later lowered or raised (People vs. Lagon)
2. Complaint – sworn written statement charging a person with an offense, subscribed by the offended
party, any peace officer or other public official charged with the enforcement of the law violated
Information – accusation in writing charging a person with an offense, subscribed by the fiscal and filed with
the court
Complaint Information
4. Cases where civil courts of equal rank are vested with concurrent jurisdiction:
ii. Vessel
(1) First port of entry
5. Remedies of offended party when fiscal unreasonably refuses to file an information or include a person
therein as an accused
6. Writs of injunction or prohibition to restrain a criminal prosecution are not available, EXCEPT
a. In RTC:
à By filing a complaint with the appropriate officer for the purpose of conducting requisite
preliminary investigation therein.
b. In Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts:
à By filing the complaint or information directly with said courts, or a complaint with the fiscal’s
office
c. In Metropolitan Trial Courts
à By filing the complaint ONLY with the office of the fiscal
à In all 3 above cases, such institution shall interrupt the period of prescription of the offense charged
(Rule 110, §1)
d. Offenses subject to summary procedure
[i.e. (1) violation of traffic laws; (2) violation of rental laws; (3) violation of municipal or city
ordinances; and (4) criminal cases where the penalty does not exceed 6 months or fine of P1000 or both,
irrespective of other imposable penalties and civil liabilities]
à The complaint or information shall be filed directly in court without need of a prior preliminary
examination or preliminary investigation.
à Zaldivia vs. Reyes – since a criminal case covered by the Rules of Summary Procedure shall be
deemed commenced only when it is filed in court, then the running of the prescriptive period
shall be halted on the date the case is actually filed in court and not on any date before that.
à Reodica vs. CA – [clarifies Zaldivia above] Under Art. 91 of the RPC, the period of prescription
shall be interrupted by the filing of the complaint or information. It does not distinguish whether
the complaint is filed for preliminary examination or investigation only, or for an action on the
merits. Thus, the filing of the complaint even with the fiscal’s office should suspend the running of
the Statute of Limitations. The ruling in Zaldivia is not applicable to all cases subject to the Rules
on Summary Procedure, since that particular case involved a violation of an
ordinance. Therefore, the applicable law therein was not Art. 91 of the RPC, but Act No. 3326
(“An Act to Establish Periods of Prescription for Violations Penalized by Special Acts and
Municipal Ordinances and to Provide when Prescription Shall Begin to Run”), §2 of which
provides that period of prescription is suspended only when judicial proceedings are instituted
against the guilty party.
8. Contents of information
Substitution
Amendment
Where only as to form, there is no need for another Another preliminary investigation is
preliminary investigation and retaking of plea of entailed and accused has to plead
accused anew
Refers to the same offense charged or which
necessarily includes or is necessarily included in
original charges, hence, substantial amendments Requires or presupposes that new info
to info after plea taken cannot be made over involves a different offense which does
objections of accused for if original info is not include or is not included in the
withdrawn, accused could invoke double original charge, hence, accused
jeopardy cannot claim double jeopardy
1. Felonies in Art. 2, RPC (cognizable by proper court in which charge is first filed)
2. Continuing offenses
3. Piracy which is triable anywhere
4. Libel (residence; or where first published)
5. In exceptional cases, to ensure fair trial and impartial inquiry
14. Procedure
1. Complaint filed in MTC or info filed in RTC where an essential ingredient of the crime took place
(territorial jurisdiction)
1. Amendment as a matter of right before plea
2. Amendment upon discretion of the court after plea
à Inclusion of other accused is only a formal amendment which would not be prejudicial to the
accused and should be allowed (People vs. CA)
d. After plea and before judgment, if it appears there was a mistake in charging proper offense, court shall
dismiss original info upon the filing of a corrected one, provided that the accused will not be placed in
double jeopardy (substitution)
à Fiscal determines direction of prosecution; complainant must ask fiscal if he wants to dismiss the
case; the motion to dismiss must be addressed to the court which has discretion over the disposition
of the case (Republic vs. Sunga)
à Objection to the amendment of an information or complaint must be raised at the time the
amendment is made; otherwise, deemed to have consented thereto.
15. Remedies
Motion to quash
à May be filed after arraignment but before plea on the grounds provided by the rules (generally, a
flaw in the info)
à If duplicity of offense charged is not raised in trial through a motion to quash info, the right to
question it is waived (People vs. Ocapan)
Motion to dismiss
à May be filed after plea but before judgment on most of grounds for motion to quash
16. Duplicity of Offense (in information or complaint)
à Defined as the joinder of separate and distinct offenses in one and the same
information/complaint
à Remedy: file a motion to quash; failure is equivalent to a waiver
à Exception: when existing laws prescribe a single punishment (complex crimes)
à Article 32 is a valid cause of a civil action for damages against public officers who impair the
Constitutional rights of citizens (Aberca vs. Ver)
à Even if the private prosecutor participates in the prosecution, if he is not given the chance to
prove damages, the offended party is not barred from filing a separate civil action
1. Waiver
2. Reservation of right to institute separate action
3. Institution of civil action prior to criminal action
à NOTE: Under SC Circular 57-97, all criminal actions for violations of BP Blg. 22 shall be deemed to
necessarily include the corresponding civil action, and no reservation to file such civil action
separately shall be allowed or recognized.
à San Ildefonso Lines vs. CA – past pronouncements of the SC that the requirement in Rule 111 that a
reservation be made prior to the institution of an independent civil action is an “unauthorized
amendment” to substantive law is now no longer controlling. Far from altering substantive rights, the
primary purpose of the reservation requirement is to avoid multiplicity of suits, to prevent delays, to
clear congested dockets, to simplify the work of the trial court, and in short, the attainment of justice
with the least expense and vexation to parties-litigants.
1. The civil action involves an issue similar or intimately related to the issue raised in the criminal action
2. The resolution of such issue will determine whether the criminal action will proceed or not
à Requisites for a prejudicial question:
1. The civil action involves an issue similar or intimately related to the issue raised in the criminal action:
and
2. The resolution of such issue determines whether or not the criminal action may proceed
à Petition for suspension of criminal action is to be filed at any time before prosecution rests.
5. Remedies
Reservation of right to institute separate civil proceedings to recover civil liability arising from crime
à Must be made before prosecution presents evidence
à Action instituted only after final judgment in criminal action
Petition to suspend the criminal action
à May be filed upon existence of a prejudicial question in a pending civil action
à Filed at any time before the prosecution rests
6. Extinction of penal action does not carry with it extinction of the civil unless the extinction proceeds from
a declaration in a final judgment that the fact from which the civil might arise did not exist.
à Final judgment in civil absolving defendant from civil liability not a bar to criminal action
7. Filing fees:
à A preliminary investigation is only necessary for an information to be filed with the RTC; complaints may be
filed with the MTC without need of an information, which is merely recommendatory (Tandoc vs. Resultan)
à Absence of a preliminary investigation is NOT a ground for a motion to quash the information; an
information filed without a preliminary investigation is defective but not fatal; in its absence, the accused
may ask for one; it is the fiscal’s refusal to conduct a preliminary investigation when the accused demands
one which is a violation of the rights of the accused (Doromal vs. Sandiganbayan). Court should not dismiss
the info, but hold the case in abeyance and either: (1) conduct its own investigation; or (2) require the fiscal
to hold a reinvestigation.
2. GENERAL RULE: The fiscal conducts the preliminary investigation before filing an information with the
RTC, EXCEPT where the accused is lawfully arrested without a warrant and an inquest is conducted.
3. Right to Preliminary Investigation
à Waived by failure to invoke the right prior to or at least at the time of the plea
à If the investigating officer is an MTC judge, and he finds that probable cause exists and that there
is a need to place the accused under custody, then he may issue a warrant of arrest
à Flores vs. Sumaling – What differentiates the present rule from the previous one is that while before,
it was mandatory for the investigating judge to issue a warrant for the arrest of the accused if he
found probable cause, the rule now is that the investigating judge’s power to order the arrest of the
accused is limited to instances in which there is a necessity for placing him in custody “in order not to
frustrate the ends of justice.” It is therefore error for the investigating judge to order the issuance of a
warrant of arrest solely on his finding of probable cause, without making any finding of a necessity to
place the accused in immediate custody to prevent a frustration of justice.
1. Investigating officer forwards records to the city fiscal or chief state prosecutor
1. City fiscal or state prosecutor either dismisses the complaint or files the information in court
à Decision prevails over decision of the MTC judge
1. If accused waives Art. 125, RPC and asks for a preliminary investigation, with the assistance of counsel,
then the procedure for one prior to arrest is followed
1. Inquest conducted as follows
(a) Fiscal determines the validity of the arrest
(b) Fiscal determines existence of prima facie evidence based on the statements of the complainant,
arresting officer and witnesses
(c) Fiscal either dismisses the complaint and orders the immediate release of the accused, OR prepares and
files an information
à While fiscal has quasi-judicial discretion whether or not to file an information, once it is filed with the court,
the court acquires jurisdiction giving it discretion over the disposition of the case and the Sec. of Justice
should refrain from entertaining petitions for review or appeals from the decision of fiscal (Crespo vs. Mogul;
Velasquez vs. Undersecretary of Justice)
NOTE: Information may be filed by offended party, peace officer or fiscal without preliminary investigation.
6. Remedies
a. Motion for preliminary investigation
à Must be with assistance of counsel and after waiving Art. 125, RPC
à Filed within 5 days after accused learns an information against him has been filed without a preliminary
investigation
d. Appeal to DOJ
à Filed upon denial of his motion for a preliminary investigation, on the ground that his rights to due process
of law were violated, ousting the court of jurisdiction
à Ordinarily, injunction will not lie but may be granted in certain cases
1. When strong-arm tactics are used for vindictive purposes (Salonga vs. Cruz-Pano)
2. When the accused is deprived of his rights
3. When the statute on which the charge is based is null and void
4. When it will aid the administration of justice (Tatad vs. Sandiganbayan)
5. When multiplicity of suits will be avoided (Guingona vs. City Fiscal)
b. When an offense has just been committed and the person making the arrest has personal knowledge
that the person to be arrested committed it
à Warrantless arrest anytime for a continuing offense like rebellion, subversion (Umil vs. Ramos)
à The continuing crime, not the crime finally charged, needs only be the cause of the arrest (Umil vs.
Ramos)
c. When person to be arrested is an escaped detainee (either serving sentence or with case pending)
1. When a person lawfully arrested escapes
2. Bondsman, for purpose of surrendering the accused
3. Accused attempts to leave country without court permission
4. Procedure
a. With warrant
1. Complainant files application with affidavits attached
2. Judge conducts ex parte preliminary examination to determine probable cause
à In determining probable cause, judge must:
(1) Personally examine witness
(2) Witness must be under oath
(3) Examination must be reduced to writing (Luna vs. Plaza)
à In determining probable cause, the judge may rely on findings by responsible officer (Lim vs. Felix)
4. If peace officer is unable to serve warrant 10 days after issuance, he must file a report and
explanation with judge within 10 days
5. If warrant served
(1) Person informed that he is being arrested
(2) Informed of cause of his arrest
(3) Officer may break door or window if admission to building is refused
(4) Person physically restrained
b. Without warrant:
1. Person is arrested
1. Person arrested may waive right to Art. 125, RPC and ask for preliminary investigation or inquest
à Fiscal is not judicial authority contemplated under Art. 125 (Sayo vs. Chief of Police)
1. Fiscal files info
5. Requisites for a warrant of arrest:
1. Probable cause
2. Signed by judge
3. Specifically naming or particularly and sufficiently describing person to be arrested
à John Doe warrants are void for being general warrants (Pangandaman vs. Cesar)
6. Remedies
à Filed when a person is being illegally detained (without judicial process), or was illegally arrested (void
warrant or unlawful warrantless arrest, or warrantless arrest beyond period with no information filed)
à Filed with court which issued the warrant of arrest when the warrant of arrest is fatally flawed
à Filed with court when information against the person arrested has been filed
à Must be made in a “special appearance” before the court questioning only its lack of jurisdiction over the
person of the accused
à Otherwise, the voluntary appearance of the person arrested by filing a motion before the court would be
deemed a submission to the authority of the court, thus granting it whatever jurisdiction it lacked over the
person
à Any irregularity in the arrest is cured when the petitioner submits himself to the jurisdiction of the
court, e.g., by filing for bail (Bagcal vs. Villaraza)
7. V.V. Mendoza, “Rights to Counsel in Custodial Investigation”
à Evolution of rights of the accused under custodial investigation
1. Bail – security given for the release of a person in custody of law, furnished by him or a bondsman,
conditioned upon his appearance before any court as required under the following conditions:
1. Undertaking effective upon approval and remains in force at all stages until promulgation of
judgment, unless sooner cancelled
2. General Rule: All persons are entitled to bail as a matter of right, except those charged with capital
offenses.
à Right to bail traditionally unavailable to military personnel facing court martial, who are not in the
same class as civilians (Comendador vs. de Villa)
à Bail should be available regardless of other circumstances or the merits of the case, if the health or
the life of the detainee is in danger (Dela Rama vs. People’s Court)
à Excessive bail is tantamount to denial of bail, which is unconstitutional (DelaCamara vs. Enage)
4. When bail is discretionary (application filed with court where case is pending)
1. Upon conviction by RTC of an offense not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life
imprisonment
2. Provisional liberty under same circs. but during period to appeal subject to consent of bondsman
3. In case he has applied for probation after final judgment, he may be allowed temporary liberty under
his bail or recognizance
5. Procedure
(1) Where information against him was filed or where case is pending
(2) Absent (1), in another branch of the same court within the province or city where he is held
(3) If arrested in another province, city or municipality, file with the RTC
1. Obligation of record entered into before some court of magistrate duly authorized to take it, with the
condition to do some particular act, the most usual condition in criminal cases being the appearance
of the accused for trial
2. Does not require signature of accused for trial
3. Does not require signature of accused to be valid
8. Prosecution witnesses may be required to post bail to ensure their appearance at the trial, except:
1. Substitution of info (see R110, §14)
2. Court believes that material witness may not appear at the trial
9. When bail required under RA 6036 (violation of ordinance, light felony, criminal offense – not higher that 6
month imprisonment and/or P2000 fine, or both)
1. a. Caught in flagrante
2. Confessed to commission of offense unless repudiated (force and intimidation)
3. Previously escaped, evaded sentence or jumped bail
4. Violation of Sec. 2 (fails to report to clerk of court periodically under his recognizance)
5. Recidivist, habitual delinquent previously convicted for an offense to which the law or ordinance
attaches an equal or greater penalty or for 2 or more offenses to which it attaches a lighter penalty
6. Committed offense while on parole or under conditional pardon
7. Previously pardoned by municipal or city mayor for violation of ordinance for at least 2 times
1. Offense charged is a violation of an ordinance, a light felony or criminal offense the imposable
penalty to which does not exceed 6 months and or P2000 fine
2. Person has been in custody for a period equal to or more than the minimum of the imposable
principal penalty, without application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law or any modifying
circumstance
3. Accused has applied for probation and before the same has been resolved, but NO BAIL was filed or
accused is incapable of filing one
4. Youthful offender held for physical and mental examination, trial or appeal, if unable to furnish bail
a. Upon application with the court and due notice to the fiscal
1. Case is dismissed
1. Accused is acquitted
2. Accused is convicted and surrenders for execution of judgment
12. When bail cancelled or denied: after RTC imposes imprisonment exceeding 6 years, but not more than
20 years, and:
1. Accused is a recidivist, quasi-recidivist, habitual delinquent or guilty of the aggravating circumstance
of reiteration;
2. Provisionally escaped, evaded sentence, violated provisions of bail;
3. Committed offense while on probation, parole, or conditional pardon;
4. Probability of flight; or
5. Undue risk that during appeal, he may commit another crime
13. When bail is forfeited
à 30 days for bondsman to show cause why judgment should not be rendered against him
c. Bondsman fails to satisfactorily explain to the court why accused did not appear when first required to do
so
à Sureties guarantee only appearance of the accused, not his conduct (US vs. Bonoan)
à Sureties exonerated if appearance made impossible by an act of God, the obligee or the law (US vs.
Bonoan)
14. Provisional forfeiture
1. Within 30 days, produce the body or give reason for non-production AND
2. Explain satisfactorily the absence of the accused when first required to appear
15. Remedies
1. Posting bail waives the right to question any irregularity attending the arrest of a person (Callanta vs.
Villanueva). However, this does not result in waiver of the inadmissibility of the articles seized
incidentally to such illegal arrest.
2. Accused waived the right to question any irregularity in the conduct of the preliminary investigation
when he failed to do so before entering his plea (People vs. DelaCerna)
3. Accused out on bail may be re-arrested if he attempts to depart from the Philippines without prior
court permission (warrantless arrest allowed).
à The right must be substantially complied with; arraignment and later proceedings must be in a language
the accused understands (People vs. Crisologo)
c. To be present at every stage of proceedings, subject to waiver by bail
à If an accused escapes, he waives this right and merits a trial in absentia; the accused forfeits his rights to
be notified of proceedings in the future and to adduce evidence in his behalf (People vs. Salas)
1. To testify as witness on his own behalf, subject to cross-examination on matters covered by direct
examination; not to be prejudiced by his silence
2. Not to be compelled to be a witness against himself
3. To confront and examine the witnesses against him, including the right to use in evidence testimony of
a witness
4. Who is deceased, out of or cannot with due diligence be found in the RP
1. Given in another proceeding
2. With the same parties
3. Same subject matter
4. Opportunity to cross-examine
à Prosecution has no privilege to withhold the identity of informers when such informer was crucial in the
operation itself; failure to present the informer is a denial of the right to confront the witness which merits the
reversal of the conviction (People vs. Bagano)
g. To have compulsory process to secure witnesses and evidence in his behalf
à Unreasonable postponements of trial amounts to a denial of the right to a speedy trial, entitling the
accused to mandamus to compel dismissal of the case, or to habeas corpus if he is detained
a. To due process
b. Against self-incrimination
à Right is limited to testimonies; ocular inspection of the body may be allowed (Villaflor vs. Summers)
à Being informed of rights means a meaningful transmission of information, without which confession made
by the accused is inadmissible (People vs. Nicandro)
à Confessions obtained through coercion are inadmissible (People vs. Opida)
à Right against self-incrimination and to counsel do not apply during custodial investigation (People vs.
Ayson)
à During trial, the right against self-incrimination takes the following form:
3. Double jeopardy
5. Remedies
1. Motion to quash
2. Motion to dismiss
à Both filed on the ground of violation of accused’s rights, thereby ousting the court of jurisdiction
6. NOTES:
à Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 1
No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be
denied the equal protection of the laws.
1. No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of law.
2. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved, and
shall enjoy the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusations against him, to have a
speedy, impartial and public trial, to meet the witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory
process to secure the attendance of witnesses and the production of evidence in his behalf.
However, after arraignment, trial may proceed notwithstanding the absence of the accused provided that
he has been duly notified and that his failure to appear is unjustifiable.
All persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial, or
administrative bodies.
No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense.
If an act is punished by a law or ordinance, conviction or acquittal under either shall constitute a bar to
another prosecution for the same act.
Rule 116 Arraignment and Plea
1. Procedure
1. Court informs accused of his right to counsel and asks him if he wants one
2. Court appoints counsel de oficio if accused has none
à If no such member of the available, any person who is a resident of the province, of good repute for
probity and ability to defend accused
c. Court gives counsel time to confer with accused at least an hour before arraignment
à Period allowed for counsel de oficio to confer with accused must be substantially complied with; if not,
case may be remanded for re-arraignment (People vs. Gonzaga)
1. Accused given a copy of the information, which is read to him in a language he understands
2. Accused is asked whether he pleads guilty or not guilty
3. Accused files a motion to quash or makes plea
4. Accused personally makes his plea
5. Plea is entered into record
6. If accused makes plea of not guilty, counsel has at least 2 days to prepare for trial
à People vs. Agbayani – the right for 2 days to prepare must be expressly demanded. Only when so
demanded does denial thereof constitute reversible error and ground for new trial. Further, such right may
be waived, expressly or impliedly.
à NOTE, HOWEVER, under SC Circular 38-98 (implementing “Speedy Trial Act of 1997”), accused must be
given at least 15 days to prepare for trial, which shall commence within 30 days from receipt of Pre-Trial
Order.
à Statement in the judgment that the accused was arraigned and pleaded is sufficient; the manner of
statement of such fact is immaterial (People vs. Cariaga)
2. Kinds of plea
1.
No plea – a plea of not guilty shall be entered
2.
Conditional plea of guilt – a plea of not guilty shall be entered
3.
Not guilty – case proceeds to trial or pre-trial
4.
Guilty to a lesser offense – if fiscal and offended party consents, conviction under offense charged for
purposes of double jeopardy
5. Info may be amended
1. Case goes to trial
2. Even if info is not amended, and even if lesser offense is not included in offense charged, court
may still find the accused guilty of that lesser offense
e. Guilty to a capital offense
à Court conducts searching inquiry to determine if accused was aware of the charges, of his plea, and its
consequences
à Court requires prosecution to present evidence to prove guilt of accused and determine his degree of
culpability, and accused may still establish presence of mitigating circumstances in his favor
à Plea of guilty not necessarily followed by conviction. Upon receipt of exculpatory evidence (if accused
pleaded guilty), trial court should consider the plea withdrawn and in its place, order the plea of not guilty
à Plea of guilty waives only defects which may be taken advantage of by motion to quash or by plea in
abatement; cannot cure jurisdictional defects.
3. Effects
a. Entry of plea will waive
c. A plea of not guilty may not be changed to guilty, as doing so would only spare the prosecution of
presenting evidence and still result in the conviction of the accused.
4. Remedies
à Filed when the information is insufficient in form or is generally worded, that a Bill of Particulars is necessary
to clarify the acts for which the accused is being charged
b. Motion to quash
à Filed when the accused seems mentally unsound or if there is a prejudicial question in a pending civil
case
à May be filed at any time before judgment of conviction becomes final, when it can be shown that the
accused was not aware of the significance of pleading guilty to the charges
General Rule: Before entering plea; all grounds not raised deemed waived
Exception: The following grounds may be used in MTQ even after plea
1. No offense charged
2. Lack of jurisdiction over the offense charged
3. Extinction of the offense or of the penalty
4. Double jeopardy
3. Grounds
à For the info to charge a complex crime, it is not necessary that it be defined by law, only that it alleges
that one offense was necessary to commit the other (People vs. Alagao)
b. Court has no jurisdiction
1. No territorial jurisdiction
2. No jurisdiction over offense charged may be raised at any time; no waiver considered even
upon failure to move to quash on such ground
3. No jurisdiction over person of the accused
à The court gained jurisdiction over the person of the accused when he voluntarily appeared for the pre-
suspension hearing (Layosa vs. Rodriguez)
c. Accused would be put in double jeopardy
à No waiver
à No double jeopardy if first case was dismissed with the consent of the accused (Que vs. Cosico), unless
ground for dismissal is: (a) denial of right to speedy trial; or (b) insufficiency of evidence.
à If the first case was dismissed due to a deficient information, then there was no valid information and
there could be no double jeopardy (Caniza vs. People)
à Cudia vs CA – it should be the Provincial Prosecutor of Pampanga, not the City Prosecutor, who should
prepare informations for offenses committed within Pampanga but outside Angeles City. An information
must be prepared and presented by the prosecuting attorney or someone authorized by law. If not, the
court does not acquire jurisdiction. Although failure to file a motion to quash the information is a waiver of
all objections to it insofar as formal objections to pleadings are concerned, questions relating to want of
jurisdiction may be raised at any stage of the proceedings. Moreover, since the complaint or information
was insufficient because it was so defective in form or substance that conviction upon it could not have
been sustained, its dismissal without the consent of the accused cannot be pleaded as prior jeopardy, and
will not be a bar to a second prosecution.
d. More than one offense was charged, EXCEPT where law prescribes single punishment for various offenses
à No waiver
à For charge to be complete, it is necessary to state that it was exempted from any amnesty existing at the
time
à Doctrine of “Jurisdiction by Estoppel”: depends upon whether the lower court actually had jurisdiction or
not. If it had no jurisdiction, but the case was tried and decided upon the theory that it had jurisdiction, the
parties are not barred on appeal, from assailing such jurisdiction, for the same ‘must exist as a matter of law,
and may not be conferred by consent of the parties or by estoppel’. However, if the lower court had
jurisdiction, and the case was heard and decided upon a given theory, such, for instance, as that the court
had no jurisdiction, the party who induced it to adopt such theory will not be permitted, on appeal, to
assume an inconsistent position — that the lower court had jurisdiction. Here, the principle of estoppel
applies. The rule that jurisdiction is conferred by law, and does not depend upon the will of the parties, has
no bearing thereon.
c. Accused had pleaded
à Conviction for physical injuries through reckless imprudence constitutes double jeopardy to the charge of
damage to property through reckless imprudence.
5. Procedure
1. MTQ filed
2. If based on defect in info which can be cured, court shall order its amendment
3. Quashing the info shall NOT be a bar to subsequent prosecution (accused has not pleaded yet),
EXCEPT when the ground is:
1. Double jeopardy OR
2. Extinction of criminal liability
6. Remedies
à Upon denial of a MTQ, the proper remedy is to go on trial and later to appeal, if necessary; mandamus
or certiorari will only be granted if there is not other plain, simple and adequate remedy
7. Failure to move to quash or to allege any ground therefor deemed a waiver of such grounds, except:
1. Failure to charge an offense
2. Lack of jurisdiction over the offense charged
3. Extinction of the offense or of the penalty
4. Double jeopardy
Rule 118 Pre-Trial
1. Plea bargaining – process whereby the accused and the prosecution in a criminal case work out a
mutually satisfactory disposition of the case subject to court approval. It usually involves the defendant’s
pleading guilty to a lesser offense or to only some of the counts of a multi-count indictment in return for a
lighter sentence than that for the greater charge.
à Under “Speedy Trial Act of 1997”, in all criminal cases cognizable by the MTC, MCTC, MeTC, RTC and
Sandiganbayan, pretrial is mandatory.
à Under SC Circular 38-98, implementing the “Speedy Trial Act of 1997”, an accused may plea guilty to a
lesser offense only if said offense is necessarily included in the offense charged.
2. Stipulation of facts
à Facts which both parties and respective counsels agree on as evidenced by their signatures; these facts
need not be proved by evidence in trial
à Stipulation is inadmissible if unsigned by either accused or counsel; a later memo of confirmation, signed
only by counsel, cannot cure defect (Fule vs. CA)
3. Pre-trial order – binds the parties, limits the trial to matters not yet disposed of, and controls the course of
action during the trial
4. Procedure
1. To assail the admissibility of evidence which prove the elements of the offense charged
2. To assail the credibility of such evidence
3. To prove another version, possibly admitting certain evidence of the prosecution and adding other
evidence to cast reasonable doubt
à Even in summary procedure, the judge cannot base his decision simply on affidavits; he must give the
defendant the chance to cross-examine (Combate vs. San Jose)
2. Procedure
a. Parties notified of date of trial 2 days before trial date (R119, §1)
à HOWEVER, under SC Circular 38-98, accused must be given at least 15 days to prepare for trial, which shall
commence within 30 days from receipt of Pre-Trial Order.
à Cross-examination
à Re-cross
à Offer
1. Sick or infirm
2. Has to leave the RP with indefinite date of returning
6. Requisites for postponement due to absence of a witness
1. Witness is really material and appears to the court to be so
2. Party who applies for postponement has not been guilty of neglect
3. Witness can be had at the time to which the trial has been deferred
4. No similar evidence could be obtained
7. Requisites to discharge of an accused as State Witness
à Upon the court’s discretion, separate charges may be tried in one single case if the offenses charged
arise form the same facts or form part of a series of similar offenses
à Court allowed consolidation of rape cases substantially committed in the same manner (People vs.
David)
c. Motion for continuance – filed to postpone trial for just cause
à Prosecution will present evidence and the sworn statement of the proposed state witness
à Evidence adduced in this said hearing automatically form part of trial; however, if court denies motion for
discharge, his sworn statement shall be inadmissible in evidence.
à Discharge of the accused has the effect of acquittal, unless accused fails or refuses to testify against his
co-accused in accordance with his statement (which formed the basis for his discharge)
f. Demurrer to evidence
à If the court finds the prosecution’s evidence insufficient, the case will be dismissed
1. If the demurrer was made with leave of court, defense gets to present evidence
2. If the demurrer was made without leave of court, defense is deemed to have waived the right to
present evidence and the case is submitted for judgment
à Case may also be dismissed motuproprio
g. Motion to reopen
à Filed after the case is submitted for judgment but before judgment is actually rendered
à To allow either side to present additional evidence, if such could not be found before
à The accused cannot move to reopen the case to allow him to adduce evidence in his behalf when his
failure to adduce them during the trial was his own fault (People vs. Cruz)
Rule 120 Judgment
1. Judgment – adjudication by the court that the accused is guilty or not guilty of the offense charged, and
the imposition of the proper penalty and civil liability provided by law on the accused
2. General Rule: If the accused is found not guilty, he will be acquitted and the acquittal immediately
becomes final and executory. If the accused is found guilty, penalty and civil liability will be imposed on
him.
Appeal
Filed within 15 days of promulgation of judgment
Period is interrupted by filing of a motion for new trial or reconsideration
On motion of accused or at its own instance with consent of the accused
Motion for reconsideration
Filed when there are errors of law or fact in the judgment
Shall require no further proceedings
Notice should be given to the fiscal
Motion for new trial
Notice should be given to the fiscal
Filed on the following grounds:
1. Error of law or irregularities have been made during trial which are prejudicial to the substantial
rights of the accused
2. New evidence has been found which could not have been found before and which could
change the judgment
9. Procedure for new trial
1. Made by the court before judgment is rendered in the exercise of sound discretion
2. Does not require consent of accused
3. May be made at the instance of either party who can thereafter present additional evidence
2. Motion for new trial
1. Only impeaching evidence is sought to be introduced as the court had already passed upon issue of
credibility
2. Only corroborative evidence is offered
3. Prisoner admits commission of crime with which accused is charged (facility with which such
confession can be obtained and fabricated)
4. Alleged new evidence is inherently improbable and could easily be concocted
5. Alleged new evidence consists of recantations of prosecution witness, due to unreliability of such
recantations, EXCEPT if no other evidence to sustain conviction aside from recanted testimony
4. New Trial vs. Reconsideration
à Motion for recon is based on the grounds of errors of law in the judgment is court is not asked to reopen
the case for further proceedings, but to reconsider its findings or conclusions of law and make them
conformable to the law applicable to the case on the judgment the court has to render anew.
à In New Trial, irregularities are expunged from the record and/or new evidence is introduced. In
modification of judgment, no new hearings or proceedings of any kind or change in the record or
evidence. A simple modification is made on the basis of what is on the record.
à New trial presupposes that existence of a judgment to be set aside upon the granting of a new trial
à In reopening, no judgment has yet been rendered, although the hearing may have already been closed
à Grounds are errors of law or fact in judgment, which require no further proceedings.
à Proceedings and evidence not affected by irregularities stand, and those affected are set aside. Court
may allow introduction of new evidence
à Evidence already taken shall stand; new evidence taken with the old
i. With CA: notice of appeal with court, and with copy on adverse party
à If CA is of opinion that penalty should be reclusion perpetua or higher, it shall render judgment imposing
said penalty, but refrain from entering judgment and then certify the case and the entire record thereof to
the SC for review (R124, §13)
à CA may reverse, affirm, or modify judgment of RTC, or remand case for new trial or re-trial, or dismiss the
case
ii. With SC: notice of appeal where penalty imposed is life imprisonment, or lesser penalty involving offenses
committed on the same occasion, or arising out of same occurrence where graver penalty of death is
available but life imprisonment is imposed; all other cases, by petition for review on certiorari
à Once notice of appeal is filed, cannot be validly withdrawn to give way for a Motion for Recon or a
Motion for New Trial, since the filing of the notice perfected the appeal, and the trial court loses its power to
modify or set aside the judgment. The only valid withdrawal of an appeal is where the accused decides to
serve his sentence.
1. Shall not affect those who did not appeal, EXCEPT if favorable and applicable to them
2. Civil appeal by offended party shall not affect criminal aspect of judgment
3. Execution of judgment on appellant will be stayed upon perfection of appeal
3. When appeal by prosecution from order of dismissal of criminal case will not result in double jeopardy
1. When penalty is lowered and convict has already served more than the maximum period of the new
penalty
à Habeas corpus is available when a person is imprisoned beyond the maximum penalty imposed by law
(Gumabon vs. Dir. of Prisons)
NOTE: When dismissal is capricious, certiorari lies and no double jeopardy since validity and not correctness
of dismissal is being challenged.
Rule 126 Search and Seizure
1. Search warrant – an order in writing issued in the name of the People of the Philippines, signed by a
judge and directed to a peace officer, commanding him to search for personal property described therein
and bring it before the court
à Cannot be issued to look for evidence (UyKhetin vs. Villareal)
à Seizing objects to be used as evidence is equivalent to forcing one to be a witness against himself
(UyKhetin vs. Villareal)
à For a warrant to be valid, it must meet the requirements set by law (Burgos vs. Chief of Staff)
à Tapping conversations is equivalent to a search and seizure (US vs. Katz)
2. General Rule: No search or seizure can be conducted unless it is authorized by a search warrant.
Evidence gathered from an illegal search and seizure is inadmissible.
à Warrantless searches are illegal, unreasonable and unconstitutional (Alvarez vs. CFI)
à It is not the police action which is impermissible, but the procedure and unreasonable character by which
it is exercised (Guazon vs. de Villa)
à Court gains jurisdiction over items seized by a valid search warrant and returned to it, and such is not an
unconstitutional deprivation of property (Villanueva vs. Querubin)
à Evidence from an illegal search may be used as evidence, if no objection is raised (Stonehill vs. Diokno)
à Right against unreasonable search and seizure may be waived, but for the waiver to be effective:
à Probable cause – such facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably prudent man to believe
that a crime has been committed and the thing to be searched for and seized is in the place to be
searched
b. Probable cause is personally determined by the issuing judge
à By any RTC, to be served anywhere in the country, for an offense which occurred anywhere in the
country (Malaloan vs. CA)
c. Issuing judge personally examined, in the form of searching questions, the appellant and his witness and
took down their written depositions
à Property which men may lawfully possess may not be the object of a search warrant (UyKhetin vs.
Villareal)
à Nature of goods may allow description to be general or not too technical (Alvarez vs. CFI)
e. Particularly describes the place to be searched
à Otherwise, cannot be said to have issued upon probable cause (Asian Surety vs. Herrera)
à Absence of specific offense makes impossible determination of probable cause (Stonehill vs. Diokno)
g. Was not issued for more than 10 days prior to a search made pursuant thereto (search warrant becomes
void after 10 days)
4. When a search warrant may be said to particularly describe the thing to be seized
à Oath requires that the person taking it personally knows the facts of the case (People vs. SyJuco)
à Affidavits submitted must state that the premises is occupied by the person against whom the warrant is
issued, that the objects to be seized are fruits or means of committing a crime, and that they belong to the
same person, thus, not affecting third persons (People vs. SyJuco)
à When complainant’s knowledge is hearsay, affidavits of witnesses are necessary (Alvarez vs. CFI)
b. Judge conducts ex parte preliminary examination of complainant and witnesses under oath to
determine probable cause
à Judge must ask probing questions, not just repeat facts in the affidavit (Roan vs. Gonzales)
c. Judge issues search warrant good for 10 days
d. Peace officer in presence of occupant, members of the family OR 2 witnesses of sufficient age and
discretion residing in the same locality
à Search may last for more than a day as long as it is part of the same search for the same purpose and of
the same place (UyKhetin vs. Villareal)
e. Peace officer leaves receipt with occupant at place searched
f. Peace officer files return of search warrant and inventory, and surrenders items seized to receiving court
(not necessarily court which issued the warrant)
à Items seized illegally must remain in custodialegispending resolution of the case (Roan vs. Gonzales)
6. Remedies from an unlawful search
(3) Weapons and things which may be used as proof of offense charged (Nolasco vs. Pano)
iii. Subject in an offense which is mala prohibita cannot be summarily seized (Roan vs. Gonzales)
iv. May extend beyond arrestee to include premises and surrounding under his immediate control
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, papers, houses and effects against unreasonable
searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or
warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after
examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and
particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.
1. The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable except upon lawful order of
the court, or when public safety or order requires otherwise as prescribed by law.
2. Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be inadmissible for any
purpose in the proceeding.
Rule 127 Provisional Remedies in Criminal Cases
1. Attachment as provisional remedy in criminal cases
1. Accused is about to abscond from RP
2. Criminal action is based on a claim for money or property embezzled or fraudulently misapplied or
converted to the use of the accused who is a public officer, or any officer of a corporation, or an
attorney, factor, broker, agent or clerk in a fiduciary capacity, in willful violation of duty
3. Accused has concealed, removed or disposed of his property, or is about to do so
4. Accused resides outside the RP
Reference:
Remedial Law (Criminal Procedure) Memory Aid
Ateneo Central Bar Operations 2001